Could our actions be decided by our conscious mind?

[ryan]

The conscioisness arises *from* the state of neurons. That's my argument against P1.

Nothing arises from a snapshot. Consciousness is where the past, present and future is reflected in neural processes. It makes sense that this takes place where sense becomes response.

If one looks at sensory processes one sees current processing refrects past present and future throughout the sensory- response pathway at every waystation in information journey through the nervous system.

Why does the state have to be a snap shot?

You call it reflecting; I call it arising, pretty close.

 

[ryan]

The conscioisness arises *from* the state of neurons.

Yes, I have long understood it was your belief, and as you suggested yourself, this is usually the belief people have.

But a belief doesn't work as a logical argument. People believe all sorts of things, that the Sun turns around the Earth and that sort of things. I am asking you to provide a fact that's relevant. A fact that proves the premise false. The fact that you have a belief doesn't contradict premise 1 since it may well be true that you have this belief that consciousness arises from the state of a group of neurons and that premise 1 is true, for example if your belief is mistaken.

That's my argument against P1.

Yes, I got that but it isn't a logical argument. I'm not interested in what people believe here. I already know that, each one of you here. What I asked is a refutation of the argument.

Ryan, this is an important point. I understand you're busy but you should take the time to understand what I'm saying here. This isn't so terribly complicated and it is in fact very basic. If you don't take the time to understand this point, you'll never understand logic. Don't go there. There are enough idiots there. You can also look at all my posts to DBT in this thread. He doesn't understand but I would assume you should.
EB

But I already gave you a fact. I even said "The fact is ..." when you asked before. The report of qualia is the fact.

If this ,say, redness that is reported is true and objectively undetectable (my P1) then you have left something out in P1 (my C1).

So that is my logic to explain why a group of neurons is not enough to explain what is there.

 

[DBT]

You can also look at all my posts to DBT in this thread. He doesn't understand but I would assume you should.
EB

The posts addressed to me just display the same conceit and arrogance you present to anyone you happen to disagree with. That's just your nature. Always assuming yourself to be the very embodiment of logic and reason, a veritable God looking down on mere mortals, the defender of reason, yet failing to grasp the fallacies of your own arguments no matter how many times they are pointed out That is your folly.

Again: if 'somebody's conscious mind may be the state of a group of neurons in this person's brain, and what somebody does is determined by the state of a group of neurons in this person's brain'' it is the groups of neurons and their states that determines both what someone does and the expression of conscious mind rather than just conscious mind as your conclusion suggests.

If you cannot see the fallacy of your argument, you need to wake up Noddy. Perhaps take a course in basic logic....better yet, basic manners.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Yes, I have long understood it was your belief, and as you suggested yourself, this is usually the belief people have.

But a belief doesn't work as a logical argument. People believe all sorts of things, that the Sun turns around the Earth and that sort of things. I am asking you to provide a fact that's relevant. A fact that proves the premise false. The fact that you have a belief doesn't contradict premise 1 since it may well be true that you have this belief that consciousness arises from the state of a group of neurons and that premise 1 is true, for example if your belief is mistaken.



Yes, I got that but it isn't a logical argument. I'm not interested in what people believe here. I already know that, each one of you here. What I asked is a refutation of the argument.

Ryan, this is an important point. I understand you're busy but you should take the time to understand what I'm saying here. This isn't so terribly complicated and it is in fact very basic. If you don't take the time to understand this point, you'll never understand logic. Don't go there. There are enough idiots there. You can also look at all my posts to DBT in this thread. He doesn't understand but I would assume you should.
EB

But I already gave you a fact. I even said "The fact is ..." when you asked before. The report of qualia is the fact.

But it's an irrelevant fact. I asked you for facts, but I hope it went without saying that I was not asking for irrelevant facts.

Also, you would need to make the distinction between experiencing a quale and reporting the experience of a quale. These are two facts but they're different facts.

Still, both are irrelevant to the point you are trying to make.

If this ,say, redness that is reported is true and objectively undetectable (my P1) then you have left something out in P1 (my C1).

Nothing left out. The expression "conscious mind" in premise 1 is obviously meant to refer to qualia, only qualia, and qualia as experienced not by some subject but by each of us as subject (and also not "as reported by the subject", which would be irrelevant).

So that is my logic to explain why a group of neurons is not enough to explain what is there.

It's not a "group of neurons" but "the state of a group of neurons".

It's not a question of logic here. It's the question of what is it that you know.

Anyway, thanks for explaining your position. I can assure you you are missing a crucial point, although unfortunately I can't explain without spoiling my game. Maybe you could try thinking about water. That would be a good analogy I think.

And I'll start a new thread on this aspect. See what you can do there.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

You can also look at all my posts to DBT in this thread. He doesn't understand but I would assume you should.
EB

The posts addressed to me just display the same conceit and arrogance you present to anyone you happen to disagree with. That's just your nature. Always assuming yourself to be the very embodiment of logic and reason, a veritable God looking down on mere mortals, the defender of reason, yet failing to grasp the fallacies of your own arguments no matter how many times they are pointed out That is your folly.

Again: if 'somebody's conscious mind may be the state of a group of neurons in this person's brain, and what somebody does is determined by the state of a group of neurons in this person's brain'' it is the groups of neurons and their states that determines both what someone does and the expression of conscious mind rather than just conscious mind as your conclusion suggests.

If you cannot see the fallacy of your argument, you need to wake up Noddy. Perhaps take a course in basic logic....better yet, basic manners.

But you haven't explained how it would be a fallacy.

All you have done so far is assert it is a fallacy and then repeat your assertion. Your argument so far is entirely in the repetition of your assertion. And that is definitely a fallacy. I guess it's the most primitive of all fallacies. One boy when I was at school would do just that. He would repeat "You're wrong, you're wrong, you're wrong!" again and again. I guess he must be the President of the United States today.

Still, it's not too late. Read my posts again and try to understand what I explained several times to you already how one proves a logical argument false. No amount of derision on my part should be a reason not to do it.

And you're not the only one. I have one retired scientist who got stuck on it, too. My interpretation is that people may be thrown off the right track by their emotional state, which may well be just the state of their neurons. There's nothing much they can do, especially if they're not even conscious of the problem.
EB

 

[untermensche]

What is the mind?

When that is known what it can do to the brain will probably be known too.

Until then the idea of organized feedback by a thinking device created in some way by some fraction of brain activity is not supernatural nor irrational.

 

[PyramidHead]

A state is just some arrangement of things designated as noteworthy by humans who want to talk about it. The state of my refrigerator, for example, isn't anything over and above how I feel about the quantity and quality of food stored therein, how well it's meeting my preference for keeping things the right temperature, what I think about the smell, and etc. You can talk about a state of something affecting the state of something else, but that's just shorthand for talking about the things themselves interacting in whatever way produces the observed result; no states need be invoked at all apart from being a handy communication tool.

So, when you say:

It's not a "group of neurons" but "the state of a group of neurons".

It's not exactly false, but when unpacked it leaves a lot to be desired. When you use the state of the brain as a synonym for consciousness, you're using a shorthand designation of things in relation to other things to refer to a phenomenon that includes quite a bit more than that when experienced firsthand. It implies the feeling of vertigo, or needing to sneeze, or having to take a piss, is literally just the relative configuration of neurons when they swap parts of themselves in a specific way. We've all felt those sensations from the inside, and it still remains mysterious why that is. Merely equating them to some fact about the meat in my head is unlikely to be the whole story. I know you said "for all we know" and "maybe" in your argument, but I would contend that the likelihood of the first premise is actually very low and perhaps zero, if we're insisting that states and conscious sensations are identical only if you can define one in a way that fully captures the other.

Still, it's an interesting approach that I don't see too often. One way of getting around the implication of libertarian free will, though, is to bite the bullet: yes, it could very well be that consciousness initiates action, but consciousness is determined because it's just a state of the brain, so nothing changes by acknowledging that consciousness initiates action except for the terminology. In the end it still leads to determinism by tracing the conclusion back through its own premises.

 

[Speakpigeon]

A state is just some arrangement of things designated as noteworthy by humans who want to talk about it. The state of my refrigerator, for example, isn't anything over and above how I feel about the quantity and quality of food stored therein, how well it's meeting my preference for keeping things the right temperature, what I think about the smell, and etc. You can talk about a state of something affecting the state of something else, but that's just shorthand for talking about the things themselves interacting in whatever way produces the observed result; no states need be invoked at all apart from being a handy communication tool.

Well, I certainly disagree. What most people usually mean by state is something that's independent of our possible observation of it, just like when we talk about the Moon we're talking about something that's supposed to exist even when we're not looking at it. You may think differently, but I'm using English words and I use them according to the main use of them by English-speaking people according to the dictionary.

Obviously, when we discuss a specific state of matter, like the Moon is for example, then we are selecting a particular state for attention. But that doesn't suggest in any way that the state in question is dependent on our paying attention to it.

So, when you say:

It's not a "group of neurons" but "the state of a group of neurons".

It's not exactly false, but when unpacked it leaves a lot to be desired. When you use the state of the brain as a synonym for consciousness, you're using a shorthand designation of things in relation to other things to refer to a phenomenon that includes quite a bit more than that when experienced firsthand.

Well, you certainly haven't unpacked anything yet.

I'm using the word state in line with dictionary definition of the word "state": A condition or mode of being, as with regard to circumstances: The office was in a state of confusion.

And I'm not suggesting the two expressions "conscious mind" and "state of a group of neurons" are synonymous. They are not. I'm just pointing out the obvious that for all we know they may well be the same thing, and being the same thing is an ontological idea, something therefore very different from the idea of words being synonymous.

It implies the feeling of vertigo, or needing to sneeze, or having to take a piss, is literally just the relative configuration of neurons when they swap parts of themselves in a specific way. We've all felt those sensations from the inside, and it still remains mysterious why that is. Merely equating them to some fact about the meat in my head is unlikely to be the whole story. I know you said "for all we know" and "maybe" in your argument, but I would contend that the likelihood of the first premise is actually very low and perhaps zero, if we're insisting that states and conscious sensations are identical only if you can define one in a way that fully captures the other.

I didn't equate the conscious mind with any fact. I am essentially assuming that the conscious mind is the state of a group of neurons. What fact is that? And the state of a group of neurons isn't anything like "the relative configuration of neurons when they swap parts of themselves in a specific way". It means instead that the state of some particular group of neurons may be the conscious mind. There is nothing else to it.

In terms of likelihood, the fact is that we don't know, so don't make up any probability. One thing that certainly seems obvious to me is that this is the only plausible solution. There are other possibilities but they are all very, very far fetched, for example that the conscious mind somehow could "arise" from the brain. What, like some ethereal vapour arising from a swamp in bad horror films? This is just bad ontology and not made believable just because idiots repeat it without even thinking about what the phrase could possibly mean in reality.

And, to say that the conscious mind is the state of a group of neurons is saying exactly what the state in question is.

Still, it's an interesting approach that I don't see too often. One way of getting around the implication of libertarian free will, though, is to bite the bullet: yes, it could very well be that consciousness initiates action, but consciousness is determined because it's just a state of the brain, so nothing changes by acknowledging that consciousness initiates action except for the terminology. In the end it still leads to determinism by tracing the conclusion back through its own premises.

I don't think anyone one really knows anything in that respect. Determinism is really an idiotic notion. Reality definitely does whatever it does and that all we can say.

I'm not much motivated by the debate about free will simply because I'm absolutely certain it's essentially a stupid ideological debate that couldn't possibly be resolved, somewhat like whether there is a god, just even more terminally devoid of any practical reality. What interests me in that respect, though, is that all of us feel free to do what they want and indeed end up doing what they had wanted, and I take that to be what nearly everybody think free will means in reality, save for a very small number of ideologically motivated Don Quixote lunatics. And my free will is just the fact that my behaviour is most plausibly essentially determined by my brain. That's physics saying so, except for a few idiots. And if the conscious mind is just the state of a group if neurons then free will may be just the fact that what the body does is essentially what the conscious mind determines it does. Only a possibility, for sure, but there are so many things we don't know, and it's certainly better that the stupendous idiocies claimed as scientific truths by a few stultified retired scientists.

The result of this thread seems to confirm that reality is whatever people want to perceive as such. Instead of reading the argument to try and find out what was meant, most will read it inevitably by projecting on it their own inner fantasies and then argue from there. It's essentially very confused minds fighting against their own inner shadows. Both pathetic and impressive. If something can go wrong, it will go wrong.

Still, I guess this is the real world as it is. It's still fun to try and make sense of what is going on. I'm pleased with the result but I can't say anybody is helping much around here, except as punching ball sparring partner. Sorry for those who come out of here with a few bruises, I'm not free to do any different, you know.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

If you cannot see the fallacy of your argument, you need to wake up Noddy. Perhaps take a course in basic logic....better yet, basic manners.

Good, here is your chance to explain the basic logic and fallacy of the argument. Let's see what you can do there:

Formal structure of a logical argument
https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?17547-Formal-structure-of-a-logical-argument

EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

But I already gave you a fact. I even said "The fact is ..." when you asked before. The report of qualia is the fact.

If this ,say, redness that is reported is true and objectively undetectable (my P1) then you have left something out in P1 (my C1).

So that is my logic to explain why a group of neurons is not enough to explain what is there.

I started a thread on the formal structure of the argument. It's up to you to make your point there:

Formal structure of a logical argument
https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?17547-Formal-structure-of-a-logical-argument

EB

 

[DBT]

You can also look at all my posts to DBT in this thread. He doesn't understand but I would assume you should.
EB

The posts addressed to me just display the same conceit and arrogance you present to anyone you happen to disagree with. That's just your nature. Always assuming yourself to be the very embodiment of logic and reason, a veritable God looking down on mere mortals, the defender of reason, yet failing to grasp the fallacies of your own arguments no matter how many times they are pointed out That is your folly.

Again: if 'somebody's conscious mind may be the state of a group of neurons in this person's brain, and what somebody does is determined by the state of a group of neurons in this person's brain'' it is the groups of neurons and their states that determines both what someone does and the expression of conscious mind rather than just conscious mind as your conclusion suggests.

If you cannot see the fallacy of your argument, you need to wake up Noddy. Perhaps take a course in basic logic....better yet, basic manners.

But you haven't explained how it would be a fallacy.

EB

Yes I have, It's right there for anyone to see and read. It's not rocket science. It shouldn't take pages of explanation to understand.

"You're wrong, you're wrong, you're wrong!" again and again. I guess he must be the President of the United States today.

That is not what I said. I have given several clear descriptions of the fallacy of your conclusion.

Why do you not address what I said?

Again.

Basically, if it is 'somebody's conscious mind is the state of a group of neurons in this person's brain, and what what somebody does is determined by the state of a group of neurons in this person's brain' (PI, P2), what someone does is not being determined by the conscious mind (conclusion) but by the state of the neurons in this persons brain that is responsible for both conscious mind formation and related action.

It is not the mind that is acting, but the brain acting by means of conscious mind (partly by means of conscious mind, motor action being a separate pathway)

This distinction should not be hard to grasp.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I have given several clear descriptions of the fallacy of your conclusion.

Why do you not address what I said?

Again.

Basically, if it is 'somebody's conscious mind is the state of a group of neurons in this person's brain, and what what somebody does is determined by the state of a group of neurons in this person's brain' (PI, P2), what someone does is not being determined by the conscious mind (conclusion) but by the state of the neurons in this persons brain that is responsible for both conscious mind formation and related action.

It is not the mind that is acting, but the brain acting by means of conscious mind (partly by means of conscious mind, motor action being a separate pathway)

We all understand from the way you say it here that you think either that the argument is invalid or that one of the premise is wrong (or both), yet you don't explain which it is or how this is so.

So, please, address the question in my thread on the formal structure of the argument. One poster already did it, so it's possible to do it and it's no rocket science either. That's the best way to help us understand why you think the argument is wrong and convince all of us the argument is wrong, including myself.

So far, in this thread, you have explicitly accepted that both premises are true. Good. However, you haven't actually said that the argument is invalid. You only talk of the fallacy of the conclusion. What's that? Which fallacy?

Here is something to perhaps help you sort out what you mean. This looks exactly like what you mean:

Formal fallacy
In philosophy, a formal fallacy, deductive fallacy, logical fallacy or non sequitur (Latin for "it does not follow") is a pattern of reasoning rendered invalid by a flaw in its logical structure that can neatly be expressed in a standard logic system, for example propositional logic. It is defined as a deductive argument that is invalid. The argument itself could have true premises, but still have a false conclusion. Thus, a formal fallacy is a fallacy where deduction goes wrong, and is no longer a logical process. However, this may not affect the truth of the conclusion since validity and truth are separate in formal logic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_fallacy

I have started the other thread specifically on the logical structure of the argument. So, if you indeed think the argument is a formal fallacy in the sense explained here, please explain what you think is the structure of the argument, as it is suggested you should do in this Wiki article.

And if you don't think the argument is a "formal fallacy", please explain what fallacy you think it is.
EB

 

[DBT]

I have given several clear descriptions of the fallacy of your conclusion.

Why do you not address what I said?

Again.

Basically, if it is 'somebody's conscious mind is the state of a group of neurons in this person's brain, and what what somebody does is determined by the state of a group of neurons in this person's brain' (PI, P2), what someone does is not being determined by the conscious mind (conclusion) but by the state of the neurons in this persons brain that is responsible for both conscious mind formation and related action.

It is not the mind that is acting, but the brain acting by means of conscious mind (partly by means of conscious mind, motor action being a separate pathway)

We all understand from the way you say it here that you think either that the argument is invalid or that one of the premise is wrong (or both), yet you don't explain which it is or how this is so.

I have clearly stated that I do not dispute your premises. I clearly states that your conclusion does not follow from your premises, and clearly explained why it does not. Instead of addressing the explanation that I gave, you just deny that I gave an explanation.

That, frankly, is bizarre. Now, it is reasonable that you may not agree with the explanation I gave, or you may not understand the explanation I gave, but to claim I gave no explanation is ridiculous.

So, please, address the question in my thread on the formal structure of the argument. One poster already did it, so it's possible to do it and it's no rocket science either. That's the best way to help us understand why you think the argument is wrong and convince all of us the argument is wrong, including myself.

What can't you understand about the explanation that I gave? It is not hard to grasp


Again;

Basically, if it is 'somebody's conscious mind is the state of a group of neurons in this person's brain, and what what somebody does is determined by the state of a group of neurons in this person's brain' (PI, P2), what someone does is not being determined by the conscious mind (conclusion) but by the state of the neurons in this persons brain that is responsible for both conscious mind formation and related action.

It is not the mind that is acting, but the brain acting by means of conscious mind (partly by means of conscious mind, motor action being a separate pathway)

So far, in this thread, you have explicitly accepted that both premises are true. Good. However, you haven't actually said that the argument is invalid. You only talk of the fallacy of the conclusion. What's that? Which fallacy?

The fallacy is described above. That it is not someone's conscious mind that determines what they think and what they do but the state of the neurons of their brain.

In other words, brain/neuron state determines both conscious mind and whatever the person does. Therefore your conclusion: what somebody does may be determined by the conscious mind of this person, is incorrect for the reason described.

How hard is this to grasp?

Do you need a five hundred page thesis for such a simple thing?

Here's the correction;



Premise 1 - For all we know, somebody's conscious mind may be the state of a group of neurons in this person's brain;
Premise 2 - What somebody does is determined by the state of a group of neurons in this person's brain;
Conclusion - Therefore both somebody's conscious mind and what somebody does is determined by the state of a group of neurons in this person's brain.

Easy as that.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I have clearly stated that I do not dispute your premises. I clearly states that your conclusion does not follow from your premises, and clearly explained why it does not. Instead of addressing the explanation that I gave, you just deny that I gave an explanation.

No you didn't. You merely expressed your opinion that the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises.

Here is what you see as your "explanation":

what someone does is not being determined by the conscious mind (conclusion) but by the state of the neurons in this persons brain that is responsible for both conscious mind formation and related action.

Basically, you say here that my C1 is false because your C2 is true. Sorry, that's no explanation because C2 doesn't follow from the premises, premises you have explicitly accepted as true. The first part of your C2 follows from premise 2 but it does not contradict my C1. It's essentialy a repeat of premise 2, with the caveat that you are using a different wording. The second part of your C2 certainly contradicts my C1 but it doesn't follow for the premises. Specifically, your claim that the state of a group of neurons is responsible for the conscious mind doesn't follow from the premises, at least if we interpret the proposition "A is responsible for B" as in contradiction with the proposition "A is B", which seems to be the only way to understand your claim that C1 is false because C2 is true.

It is not the mind that is acting

This effectively contradicts the premises, premises you have accepted as true. What you say here deny that if A is B and B is acting then A is acting. Whoa.

Here's the correction;
Premise 1 - For all we know, somebody's conscious mind may be the state of a group of neurons in this person's brain;
Premise 2 - What somebody does is determined by the state of a group of neurons in this person's brain;
Conclusion - Therefore both somebody's conscious mind and what somebody does is determined by the state of a group of neurons in this person's brain.

Easy as that.

The notion in your conclusion that the conscious mind is determined by the state of a group of neurons doesn't follow from the premises.

Interpreting, as one might choose to do, "A is responsible for B" as equivalent to "A is B", would make my conclusion true, something you have denied, which excludes that this interpretation would be your own. Hence, your conclusion doesn't follow and you are being logically incoherent.

I don't think I can explain anything beyond that. If you don't understand, you're on your own.
EB

 

[DBT]

The notion in your conclusion that the conscious mind is determined by the state of a group of neurons doesn't follow from the premises.

Interpreting, as one might choose to do, "A is responsible for B" as equivalent to "A is B", would make my conclusion true, something you have denied, which excludes that this interpretation would be your own. Hence, your conclusion doesn't follow and you are being logically incoherent.

Of course it follows from the premises. It's the only conclusion that follows from the premises.

Premise 1 - For all we know, somebody's conscious mind may be the state of a group of neurons in this person's brain, has no suggestion or hint of determination by the conscious mind of this person. Premise one supports supports nothing more than conscious mind determined by the state of a group of neurons

Premise 2 - What somebody does is determined by the state of a group of neurons in this person's brain, also only supports action being determined by the state of a group of neurons

And then suddenly, pulled out of who knows where, we have the conclusion; Therefore, for all we know, what somebody does may be determined by the conscious mind of this person.

Where does this 'action determined by conscious mind' even come from? There is no suggestion of it in either of the premises, but suddenly, inexplicably, there it is, a conclusion that has no link or relationship to your premises

Therefore your conclusion does not follow from your premises.

I don't think I can explain anything beyond that. If you don't understand, you're on your own.
EB

Somebody obviously doesn't understand....but in this instance that somebody doesn't appear to be me.

 

[untermensche]

Sometimes a thing is so undefined it is worthless.

The idea of "state of a group of neurons" is an example.

State of what?

Their membranes?

Their proteins?

The state of their nuclei?

What the hell does it mean?

It is nothing but a smoke screen to pretend some kind of understanding when there is none.

Humans are good at that.

The brain is never in the same state twice.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Some people here don't speak English.

If you don't understand what the expression "the state of a group of neurons" means, you're on your own.

And whether you understand or not what it means shouldn't prevent you from recognising the validity of the argument.

Also, the expression "the state of a group of neurons" seems to me good enough to assess the truth of premise 1 and 2, and therefore of the conclusion.

Oh, well, why do I bother at all, I wonder?

I guess I can always ask my neurons. They will know.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

The fallacy is described above. That it is not someone's conscious mind that determines what they think and what they do but the state of the neurons of their brain.

And your argument here is indeed a fallacy, the fallacy of asserting the conclusion.

You're saying in effect, and all you are saying in effect, is that my conclusion is false therefore my argument is invalid, and my conclusion is false only because you assert the negation of my conclusion. Fallacy of asserting your own conclusion.

Yes?

Well, prove your conclusion is true. Just asserting isn't good enough.
EB

 

[untermensche]

Some people here don't speak English.

If you don't understand what the expression "the state of a group of neurons" means, you're on your own.

And whether you understand or not what it means shouldn't prevent you from recognising the validity of the argument.

Also, the expression "the state of a group of neurons" seems to me good enough to assess the truth of premise 1 and 2, and therefore of the conclusion.

Oh, well, why do I bother at all, I wonder?

I guess I can always ask my neurons. They will know.
EB

The "state of a group of neurons" is a meaningless phrase.

It tells us nothing about anything.

 

[DBT]

The fallacy is described above. That it is not someone's conscious mind that determines what they think and what they do but the state of the neurons of their brain.

And your argument here is indeed a fallacy, the fallacy of asserting the conclusion.

Object as much as you like, but your conclusion has no relationship to your premises. That conscious mind and conscious is determined by the state of a group of neurons does not allow for action being initiated by conscious mind because both conscious mind and action is being determined by brain state, the working conditions within a group of neurons.

Your conclusion implies Dualism where there is no room for Dualism.


Your persistent denial of this just shows that you don't understand the subject matter or the composition of your own argument.


The sooner you realize and acknowledge this error, the happier you'll be.

You're saying in effect, and all you are saying in effect, is that my conclusion is false therefore my argument is invalid, and my conclusion is false only because you assert the negation of my conclusion. Fallacy of asserting your own conclusion.

Yes?

Well, prove your conclusion is true. Just asserting isn't good enough.
EB

Not even close. Not even in the ballpark. What a poor rational. Try again if you like, but it would be better if you just acknowledged your erroneous argument. There is no shame in making a mistake and admitting to it.